Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Basic Vocabulary Private v Public sectors (Budget Revs Expenses | Assets Liabilities)

Standard Journalism on Each New Family Court Fiasco Wastes Your Time, and Mine [Publ. July 14, 2022].

leave a comment »

You are reading:

Standard Journalism on Each New Family Court Fiasco Wastes Your Time, and Mine [Publ. July 14, 2022]. (short-link here ends “-eRJ”)  

As revised Nov. 13, 2022 to clarify #EndTheAcronym “CAFR” (a term I used 20 times below; it’s been a theme in this blog for a decade) about 12,000 – 13,000 words, in clearly marked sections).  You will detect my sense of irritation and feeling both a bit besieged and betrayed in that opening section, which is narrative and not detailed documentation; but detailed documentation describes What I Do; when I summarize, I’m speaking from that awareness and years of investigations, not free-lance, not on any sponsored fellowship, or for employment.  I’ve done it because it needs doing, and because I’ve yet to see anyone PAID for doing this who’s willing to expose the public/private enterprises or the philanthropic sector as a whole, which my studies have led consistently to over the years, as an issue of its own. I’ve also done it for future generations, and as a mother: even though my children are now fully adult, not even that young; I still care about what they may face down the road.  

I want a record preserved of what I have seen, and what I have also talked a bout year after year, “to the contrary” of typical advocacy, typical journalism and which reflects at the highest levels on policy-making; on what this country is doing to its citizens WITH their resources, and where that’s going.

More to the point (of why I want to call attention to it, again), this post lists titles of seven planned posts around this theme, talking about themes I believe deserve higher priority, and in this list also featuring the nature and major players of the family courts, by name and (as to Denver, Colorado, USA specifically and also naming specific entities or agencies, Commonwealth Countries Canada, the UK, and of course Australia) and “time for a re-cap” of what, exactly, is the AFCC.

If you read nothing else below, read those titles (probably the bottom half of the post) and what’s immediately before the listing, with comments in between.  Know that of that list ONLY this one has been published so far (so no links shown there except to this one will be active as of Nov. 2022)..

Nov. 13, 2022, update sections (plural, next) aren’t a separate post only because I have other posts and obligations (life tasks) higher in priority. These sections are probably a third of the total length.  

It’ will sound and it feels awkward to go back and update posts written months (or, sometimes, years ago) but I am not in a position to do several re-writes.  This fix, an extended “update” typed directly onto an already-published post, is a compromise.  In different conditions, I would have started a new post with better-written updates and just link back to this one.

These updates are more informal, summary and rushed than anything below it, which information and expression I still stand by, enough to be re-posting it (probably with images) on Twitter, even a platform now owned by Elon Musk and with an uncertain future. Sometimes I feel speaking out NOW pre-empts speaking out PERFECTLY  (as to expression, not as to subject matter or basic content which I say is decent and fair).  Of course it contains some of my feelings and sentiment about dealing, long-term, with the same dilemma and with coalitions of people of indeterminate number, influence (but seeking major influence) getting press coverage, but whom I know as beyond unethical in the reporting and approach. They are not “the good guys” in the situation, even when possibly talking about even worse guys.

Rather than talk ABOUT the problem issues, these (FamilyCourtReformists and their favorite journalists and/or cheerleaders from outside the USA when talking about things inside it) pick “substitute” issues and talk them up instead, get published somewhere — several “wheres” in fact, and relentlessly refer to each other each time.

Quantity over quality prevails throughout.

These operate like cults and I say because of that, are corrupt, obstruct justice and because impervious to reason (while publishing and social-media promoting as though exercising it), also dangerous to sound government (while proclaiming it’s what they really want).  If RICO (a single, overall, “Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization”) were the best and most accurate answer to this question: “what are the family courts and their peripheral operations as an enterprise?” this crowd would be LEAST likely to expose it, and are probably (therefore) IN on it, as it’s obvious they don’t want anyone else exposing it, either.

References to “cottage industry” (easier to dismiss or contemplate, minimizes) yes.  RICO? No.  But I’ve made and posted this comparison (Search RICO on the blog, top right sidebar).  The key concept behind “RICO” is “CRIMINAL” — organized crime.  That’s why when the problems keep showing up, it’s that organization that should be reported (how it’s’ structured — not individual laws or policies).  What do we do when government begins to resemble and act like “organized crime?”  Which is scarier — an individual abuser in a community, or that situation, which affects all of the communities, plural?

I don’t know exactly how, when, or by whom, these individuals and their respective entities (or, non-entities) were compromised, but that they have been (if they even started from a legitimate perspective or motive) is evident.  That this also involves Harvard, University of Chicago, at times Yale, Princeton, etc. graduates, law professors (east coast, west coast) and marriage/family therapists (like Mo Hannah, PhD,**) is no less disturbing, in fact more so.  With backing, often, by major tax-exempt foundations, or universities which have the same, in abundance not to mention institutional funds: large ones..

(** who co-founded the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, operating without incorporating, and  featuring, most years, a California nonprofit which has been since FTB/SOS suspended there, barely casts a fiscal shadow but shows up promoted on the “Safe Parents” website, welcomed as among the initial “members” while I’ve been blocked by both it and some of the (original) members, on Twitter).


Meanwhile, the IRS database (http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/) even ProPublica.org admits isn’t current.  Beyond it not being current, its search results showing “location” aren’t always showing legal domicile; and entity addresses can change without legal domicile changing.  When there are many similar but not identical filings named after specific causes, how search by geography?

I’d love to take on THAT project; it is on my back burner to find out why.  A problem arises when the IRS isn’t posting the latest delivered tax returns; an entity may change its name before they do so.  Other data comes from those IRS returns.  I’ve read that, and some entities clearly understand (because their returns say so in a Schedule O (Supplementary info to a Form 990) they aren’t subject to questioning for tax returns older than three years.  If the postings are already two years behind, how is that supposed to help with open and transparent government?

<>Preview and Sound-Off, WHY I’m feeling a need to reference this post again:

(Nov. 13, 2022.  Yes, I voted!).

Although I never got to publish any of those seven posts, my describing them here with lengthy titles and some previews did announce aloud that this theme, in my voice, my words and with my (known) perspective was coming.

However small my followers are here or on Twitter (note:  there can be more readers who don’t “follow”), once published here, July, 2022, that word was out.  Between now and then I was again put homeless and am struggling not just for housing but also to not completely stop commenting and writing. I never stopped reading or researching these topics for long, no matter what else is on my personal plate, but life issues can and do impact quantity of output, especially with what (format, copy editing, clarity) quality standards I don’t feel I can compromise, knowing it’s already not Chicago or APA style, or even fully copy edited/proof read most times.  Other causes of delay may involved input devices (technology obstacles).  I have been negotiating hotel living a few (typically three to five) days at a time for over five months now, and keeping as close track on finances as possible.  Each hotel reservation, most of them, grab excess funds up front and then release them on check-out; up to 25 or 30%. Although (more expensive) hotels exists with full kitchens, I didn’t feel I could afford these and so have been without a kitchen sink, stovetop, or even a half-sized refrigerator since last June. In exchange for not having these, I mostly stayed at one place which I felt was physically secure, know was clean, and where my car (I do have a car) could be seen from the hotel room. It was not halfway across some large parking lot.

There has been another round of litigation in my name, out of state, which I had to let slide and did not participate in, although it affects my future deeply.

If you are noticing since July, 2022, some “news” on specific court professionals or programs from Colorado and specifically, Denver, (like “bad custody evaluators” being outed, or reunification camps) on-line SINCE I posted here, know that while most protective mothers groups involved in the DVCoalitions and being (used by, and volunteering for it apparently) the FamilyCourtReformists power players, have long been aware of this blog and of exactly where I stand on covering up financials needlessly, failing to talk about the networked nonprofits direct the public to investigate public-access information that they have every right to and ought to know exists and which information can and should be studied and talked about (such as the Family Values, Marriage/Fatherhood and Faith-based Initiatives movement; what these are and how they works, the role welfare reform played in sponsoring this at public expense, AND that CAFRs (excuse me “ACFRs” now) show that governments aren’t as broke as they talk at any level.

 


The so-called “protective mothers” nonprofits and group email/on-line forums at a minimum from California and those involved long-term in the Battered Mothers Custody Conference (2003f) and those they worked alongside for now about two decades (including but not limited to those featured now in the website NationalSafeParents.org and at least (as to leadership) Joan Meier of the so-called “National Family Violence Law Center,” previously of “DVLEAP.org” (see my recent post)) are reasonably aware (not naive about) what I blog.

Based on my early email communications, on-line commentary, some phone calls with the same, at least their founders and main spokesman, and my friendships with people loyally devoted to and hoping in this movement (formerly battered mothers, at least one then homeless, in-state and out of state) are (beyond those I specifically communicated with) aware of me as a person, and if not, of this blog.  I have communications dating back to 2009, but my domestic violence-family court case just preceded these times earlier in California.  Beyond these groups, I also know by acquaintance from having, first, sought help from (remember those lists of 800 referral numbers and websites handed out, women?) and later researched the filings of “resources” for women in this situation.  It has always seemed strange to me how groups in California would ignore parents in California while crossing state lines (whether in person or on-line) to recruit and solicit stories of broken parents and children about broken family courts, from across the nation, and work with equally SMALL (if the tax returns are to be believed) groups whose legal domicile often didn’t match their entity addresses, who weren’t even large enough to be required to file full-sized Forms 990 and who (of course) habitually (like “AFCC”) opted to NOT post those financials on their own websites.

WHAT made it necessary to favor nonprofits groups who don’t, don’t have to [i.e., university-sponsored “centers” or “institutes” whose funds and backers would be hard to track in detail) or barely file (even if something is shown on their websites), while the press often, uncritically, continues to cite their affiliations by name, as if a source of credibility? That’s what the Protective Mothers (and “Safe Parents” “Family Court Reformists” overall) have featured throughout to either seem financially and numbers-wise larger (and more grassroots) than they are — or at times to seem smaller and more representative of the “underdogs” in these situations?

(For more general take, see my June, 2014 post, “parades, charades and facades”)…


A decade or so ago I also worked for a few years in informal conjunction with Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) of Annandale, Virginia, who also knew these individuals and was reporting on what, basically, they wouldn’t.  Basically, I developed this blog realizing she had chosen not to focus on developing her website further.  We split paths many years ago but before then, reviewing some of these earlier emails the other day (while looking for one I’d mistakenly archived), I was again reminded that she’d reportedly (based on how I was handled, I have no reason go disbelieve) frozen out long ago of mainstream DV and protective parents circles.  She was that early inquiring about what Joan Meier reasonably did or didn’t know, and (like me) corruption among DV advocates.  We later split, in part, after I found my email being shared without privacy among a very large group email which was a safety issue at the time.  I later heard that she called me names and cited another reason for my breaking off communications.  (Another one, although I understand the mannerisms and value someone with her “cut to the chase” aggressive phone manner, I got tired of being handled in this way.

Such groups if they even glances at my blog, realize I’m saying the financial trail and networked nonprofits should be handled before their favorite series of themes:  unsound psychological theories and flawed practices in broken family courts with “lack of oversight” and “inadequate training” and not enough federal — to be echoed at the state level (USA) legislation to demand more trainings (Kayden’s Law, Jennifer’s law in Connecticut) which — ultimately — this crowd OR their friends and backers who developed the “it’s NOT about the money, it’s about unsound psychological theory, especially Parental Alienation and Coercive Control and clever abusers outsmarting judges, or innocent judges fooled by mean custody evaluators (and so forth), will be involved in:  after all, it was their idea to report on it, right?

The “murdered children” theme featuring Center for Judicial Excellence (<~~Link to its latest IRS Form 990EZ, that’s FY2019, EIN#204892221, total receipts only $157K, no paid directors, yet its purpose is to, according to Part III:

To improve the judiciary’s public accountability and strengthen and maintain the integrity of the courts)

… wasn’t there from the start, but seems to have come seeking more dramatic impact and after several mothers noted that prior agenda was talking as though women (NOT just children) were in fact, being “murdered.”  I call this sometimes “roadkill” of the family court system, and am lucky (or, “by the grace of God”) none of my immediate family was killed by my ex, batterer, husband, and father of our children, either during or after I filed for and got a (CIVIL) “restraining order with kickout” as these are called in California.  I had been living in a war zone; a real waking nightmare, for the duration of the marriage. NO witnesses referred me to any legal help; I had to find it and go figure it out then this “help” neglected to mention welfare reform (or, naturally, AFCC) and what was predictably coming up next:  custody challenge, and custody switch, if we all were still alive after a few years.

When it comes to press releases and helping journalists continue to build their resumes, then talking about murdered children is OK.  When mothers who’ve known this for YEARS (I am NOT the only one; I may be one of the more vocal ones, but certainly not the only one) kept pointing out that we are dropping like flies —and it’s NOT only 58,000 children a year (a theme which has been resurrected again, I see) and probably never was — being switched to the custody of known abusers or getting “unsupervised visitation” with them —  that doesn’t merit our attention:  What political clout do we have that FamilyCourtReformists want?  They need fresh blood, new victims, aged-out children and parents (mother or fathers) who don’t look too closely at the financial incentives, and show others where to look such things up.

And, from time to time, one must switch away from the theme of incest (another prime issue — I doubt there’s relief for the victims) if it begins to lose its shock effect.


On Twitter and certain FamilyCourtReformists backing specific (sponsored by tax-exempt foundation through non-profit media, or other media) I have noticed more articles surfacing recently featuring Colorado. There is a sense of my posts saying “what’s up with Denver?” (And calling attention to what’s been there for years, specifically named) having been seen, but not acknowledged, as it’s preferable (for the FamilyCourtReformists) as to be seen as “leaders” and the first on any topic, and with that, of course, the most concerned about the human beings impacted by the disastrous erosion of justice in the family court system USA.

(From the post below, it shows there also):

Media awareness should also incorporate for-profit vs. tax-exempt awareness. Always look for the entity names and figure out which type it is or was. Media is often owned (and sponsored) by the powerful and well-connected. Access to or control of platforms as well as brands and entities are bought and sold, or rented (licensed). They may also be privately controlled, i.e. not public-traded.  They are rarely neutral.

That goes for universities too, though most are tax-exempt (private) or tax-exempt (because public); which is which also matters.

 

(The above quote, above the title, is my voice. Although this post isn’t published yet, I quoted enough from it for anyone who’s aware of what I was GOING to be talking about, such as the AFCC connection to IAALS.DU.edu, and the “Healthy Marriages/ResponsibleFatherhood dynamic duo (or, trio if you include Galena Rhoades) at the same DU’s “Center for Marital and Family Studies” (Scott Stanley, Howard J. Marksman, et al.) — not to mention the presence for FOUR decades now of the nonprofit “Center for Policy Research” run, in part, by Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (Also now active in FRPN.org, which I keep bringing up, as attempting to establish state-wide Fatherhood Commissions nationwide, and while the website references Temple University in Pennsylvania, the HHS grants in this project (and, FRPN is a project, not an entity) goes to the University, not CPR, which in turn subcontracts with that university.

“Family Court Fiasco” reporting could come from any state.  Such cases exist in many states: pick one, you’ll find several.  That Denver and Colorado seem to be current and VERY recent focuses seems a bit extra “coincidental.”  Whether or not it is, DV advocates and family court people, as well as family lawyers and of course judges should be and no doubt are well aware what entities in Colorado play significant roles in addressing domestic violence and child abuse in courts nationwide.

(Still Nov. 2022 update; I expect I’ll have embarrassed myself enough here to have to move it to its own place soon, anyway.  But I still need to find housing, so …. Can’t predict when this may happen.

Written in installments and sections.  Read straight through or skip to any section (page down, I have no internal links to do so).  I may [re]move (or FOOTNOTE) one large section on a school district  (in Uvalde, Texas) added for purposes of comparison, not for coverage, a situation which certainly deserves coverage and where looking at the school district, city and county financial statements would add depth and context to the headlines, but that section is here for illustration and for basic vocabulary concepts: Entities vs. Projects run by Entities, which also applies to the family courts. BOTH, as the headlines show, can be venues for massacres: family courts just do it more gradually.  However, family courts are not “entities” and it’s the entities which most directly relate to the public, through taxation and how they handle and account for themselves.//LGH]

<>UPDATE Nov. 13, 2022  because this post references CAFRs.  

Since then the acronym has changed, but the reporting requirements continue.  Pertains to government entity financial reports — audited and showing the cumulative operations, not just a yearly budget).

I have since learned that the government (vs. private entity (see my revised motto: Identify the entities, find the funding, talk sense)  comprehensive audited financial report, acronym “CAFR” is now supposed to be called “ACFR” for political sensitivity reasons relating to how it sounds when spoken aloud.  I used “CAFR” 20 times in this post alone.  I posted this on discovering it (see nearby image/s).  

Whatever you call them, at least recognize they exist and start looking up reading (at least the tables of contents and introductory pages ,and at a minimum “Note 1” to the financial statements.

To locate ”ACFRs (fka “CAFRs”), I suggest use the updated search terms the governments reporting have been asked to — and these are supposed to come out every year for EVERY government…entity)… so you find them.  Either that, or search under “Comptrollers” offices or just Google it on-line with entity name and latest year you expect one to have been filed.  It’s my understanding these are produced nationwide USA, also Canada, but probably in other developed countries too. Also be aware, school districts tend to put forward almost everything BUT their own ACFRs.  Was true at Margery Stoneman in Florida after another mass shooting as it was of the one in Uvalde.  These are rich sources of information about local (and up through the federal level of governments … plural..) operations.  They are not the only necessary place to look, but they really are essential to cut through and recognize (in contrast with what these report — and EVERY legislator likely knows (EVERY legislator and heads of major news agencies, I’m told, get these EVERY year.  If they didn’t, they’d know to look for them.  

Example:  “Connecticut Audited Comprehensive Financial Report, 2021” and you might get a link to that, or the previous year’s.  //End Update Nov. 13, 2022.


Most media covering family court fiascoes doesn’t give much relevant context of the family courts or of the media platforms.  Concerned people will have to get it, to educate themselves. To do this is to  become aware of the practice of censorship and dissemination of confusion in a coordinated attempt to manipulate public opinion and policy. Certain options have historically been kept off the table, without any reasonable explanations why, and without discrediting those options.

By options, I mean the option in selecting what to report from among all possible and plausible explanations of why these courts function as they do.

It seems that where we can’t be persuaded or manipulated to campaign for that which isn’t in our best interests, we may be left in an ignorant or confused enough state to just not oppose those who’ve already decided what’s in our best interests, i.e., we might just be conditioned to remain passive and consenting through silence, to just “let it go with the flow” for the FamilyCourtReformists et al.

The family court arena is critical to the nation’s future; those seeking to profit from it long-term know this well and from everything I’ve seen over the years wish to restrict its control to a few, inter-related private parties catering to those already in power. Overall, this is literally an coordinated attempt to undermine due process and basic separation and balance of powers within the United States. An appeal to what other countries are doing as a better model, mostly because more behavioral health services are involved, ordered, and/or mandated, is incorporated, whether in the administration of the family courts, or as regards domestic violence and child abuse issues.

As I write, the continued coverage (not on Fox News, however!!) of an alleged attempted coup/riot at the White House, our nation’s capital, January 6, 2021, is constantly in the news and being processed, with much indignation. As serious as that is, what about the family courts?

The family court arena deserves a serious, sustained and close look and exposure from other than — from outside —  standardized journalism, and from outside the coordinated collaboration of experts and stakeholders often quoted in such journalism, who have identifiable interests in keeping confusion and obfuscation going: it’s called, their career curves, reputations, and typically salaries.

This is my second run at a preview of my post series written between May 30 and mid-July, 2022.  The first run at that preview (written about halfway through it) I’ve now placed seventh, so it’s a “Re/View” although in fact it brings up some more general topics.  (See bottom of this post).  It’s called:

These seven draft posts have substantial content and are almost publication-ready, so I decided to list them here and describe what to expect, especially for the first three.  Their seven titles and links are marked clearly at the bottom in the format you see above (except titles there are bold).  That section is also clearly marked as:

THE (so far) SEVEN POSTS IN THIS SERIES (Named, Numbered, and Described)*

*Not having a separate staff or editors, or even “interns,”  I usually re-read the published post the day after, and make alterations (copy-editing or otherwise clarifying). This version is July 15, 2022, “the day after.” Any serious writer (I’m serious about this blog and this subject matter) knows that composing and editing are different processes, usually best done NOT by the author.  I don’t have that luxury here, so focus on the writing (although revising and self-critique is always part of it, and often delays publication) until I publish; once that burden is lifted, I then (try to, most times) go back and polish it some more.  Even mainstream news articles get updates; some of them even have typos, so some updates here for clarity (and I mis-spelled one proper noun a few times) should be no big deal.

Their titles still show dates begun, not dates published: No link to any post now in draft becomes both active and accurate until I publish it, and these are all still in draft. My protocol in starting any post these days is to include a “Drafted” or “Begun” date because it takes me weeks, or sometimes months, to get them posted. Yesterday (July 14) I forgot to update the title, but corrected it today.

(NB: I am not funded or salaried for these; writing still has to be worked around other life events and logistics, which have recently become more complicated, and there are ongoing technical and platform issues I’m still working on).

About half this post discusses the family court fiasco journalism contrasting it with an alternative rarely seen (I haven’t seen it yet…): exposing the underlying backbone and skeleton of the family courts and domestic violence (and responsible fatherhood) fields. This series takes that discussion forward, documenting existing, older networks I’d previously called out, and connecting interests I’d felt existed but hadn’t yet verified.  I look forward to finishing the series especially on the entities centered in the Denver, Colorado area (see series list, below), although Posts (4) and (5) below will be excellent resources — and they are significant “call-outs” to the public and affected parents to wake up! about what is taking place under their noses.

Also, since I use the term “INFRASTRUCTURE” to indicate what’s absent from standard journalism on these topics — the INFRASTRUCTURE of the family courts —  I wrote a section on it into this preview, with some images, links to others definitions, and examples of its common usage. My use is a little more generic, but the basic meaning of the underlying, sustaining structure of the operation(s) applies.  The “INFRA” in “Infrastructure” refers to that which is underneath, upholds, and sustains.

If the family courts are indeed producing fiascoes and disasters, it’s time to look at the foundations, the infrastructure on which they are built — and not just continually look at what bubbles up to the surface, or look only at programs run THROUGH them.  it’s the difference between the plumbing, sewer and irrigation systems and what flows through them.  Sure, they interact, but there is always some engineer or designer and (as I say so often here) “blueprints” involved.

Can you imagine a structural engineer who doesn’t understand the physical properties of a building, or the importance of understanding geology, bedrock etc.?  (Perhaps take a look at San Francisco’s sinking Millennium Towers if this seems irrelevant,  searchable on this blog).  Well, I need a term which can refer to the subterranean issues of the family courts and their foundations:  that is the level we should be discussing openly and in public; so should those reporting on them, or training lawyers in family law, domestic violence, etc.

INFRASTRUCTURE is a repeat topic for this blog, and a key concept for understanding how systems work.  While it’s usually and typically referring specifically to physical attributes of some systems (like highways, roads, bridges, courthouses, school facilities, tunnels, etc.) I’m using it figuratively to refer to the economic systems and conduits by which both information and resources (funding) circulates between the employed public and government, and between governments and private companies involved in these specific, developed fields.

INFRASTRUCTURE Section Preview.

In this section, I quote Cambridge English Dictionary, Investopedia (of course), refer to Bentley Systems 500, and either show, quote, or link to earlier posts I’ve written (for example, in 2019, on an Australia-originated model for a new asset class; it’s called “The Macquarie Model” and understanding that this is occurring may (should) help more of us comprehend that as physical critical infrastructure is being sold off for leasing and investor returns (complex enterprise arrangements), so too the family courts are primed for referral to outside contractors, who may be in fact more “insiders” than is obvious.

Add to this the categories of tax-exempt and not-tax-exempt as sectors, we have a complex, but still understandable, system in place to keep both customers, mandated services (referrals) and proliferation of practices supported by tax-exempt organizations + (see “university centers” also) to keep systems going, and these systems are also in a process of change (i.e., “systems-change mechanisms” are built in).

For illustration of one principle, distinguishing operations and programs or projects of entities as opposed to the Entities themselves — this applies to the family courts — I began with the example of “School Districts” (the entities) versus Schools (which are their operations and projecst) and — it’s headline news now — Uvalde School District in Texas. However I’m just doing this for illustration of the concept and to show that neither coverage nor the school district’s own website, is exactly forthcoming on its financials (but, I did find them).

Think about it (Robb Elementary School, May, 2022). There was a school massacre of children in  Texas.  Is this a “gun control’ or “mental health” or “communications” problem?

The family courts also seem to get children murdered, just not so dramatically all in one place at one time.  Both in hindsight could’ve been if not avoided totally, handled better, with fewer deaths.  There are indeed parallels between the systems. Sometimes looking at a similar (but not identical) situation helps comprehend, for comparison, the one at hand — which here is those family courts.

My focus is on how essential it is to use sensible and functional vocabulary among ourselves (and I do NOT include “FamilyCourtReformists” in this group, but especially women and mothers who’ve experienced seen the results of this system). We ought to by now understand and accept that we’re NOT likely to find this in: standard journalism; even on many public OR private entity websites, although that (accounting, entity-speak, economics, and finances) is the language spoken among these entities, in public/private partnerships, by investors, and for those who either do, or seek to, dominate any field and control enough assets  (revenue-producing wealth, often warehoused cleverly to avoid taxation across enterprises) to drive, manage, and plan the futures of society as it pleases them and their colleagues.

The masses are not necessarily to be educated on how that works; it makes (us) less manageable. Confusion, distraction, entertainment, shock-treatment (repeated, applied and avoidable social traumas, such as school shootings), without connections that the public can independently verify, are routine.

Is there hope? Is time left in which to make a difference?

I don’t know, but I do know there is still wide opportunity (for those with Internet access and who can or will make the time) to self-educate on these matters, and to become aware of and alert to patterns of communication which, again, strategically omit references to the system infrastructure of any problem being addressed, although details, anecdotes (a key feature for the journalism and story line “hook”), and sampling (cherry-picking, in fact) expert commentary on the same.



Talking about problem outcomes as though no infrastructure for the venues (Merriam-Webster: place where the thing takes place, whether a music concert, an art exhibition, or a trial) in which they occur even exists encourages readers to grasp at straws, to speculate, form ungrounded and unsound theories — or become more gullible to believe others theories stated or, more often, insinuated and implied, in such reporting.

(Etymonline.com):

venue (n.)

c. 1300, “a coming for the purpose of attack,” from Old French venue “coming” (12c.), from fem. past participle of venir “to come,” from Latin venire “to come,” from PIE root *gwa- “to go, come.” The sense of “place where a case in law is tried” is first recorded 1530s. Extended to locality in general, especially “site of a concert or sporting event” (1857). Change of venue is from Blackstone (1768).

Family courts are government operations with venues (rooms in courthouses,  or their own buildings).  They are not corporate or government entities, but part of some other government entity; they have no “personhood.”  They are budgetary items on a number of financial statements.  As government operations, they also have legal domiciles for that government (apart from its financing) and that too is going to vary by country.  It seems to me that Commonwealth countries such as the United Kingdom (as least in England and Wales) and Canada differentiate between public and private law, with family courts being considered “private” but child protection and criminal issues, public.

This also impacts who gets some defense counsel when accused, and who doesn’t.

The term seems to have as many uses as the word “church” but one thing family courts are NOT are their own entities.  Therefore, they will show up accounted for (to the extent they’re legitimately run, and their supporting entities are behaving properly to report their accounts) on some other entity’s financials — as well as planning documents, etc.

There should be a paper trail, and the finances should be documented and visible to the public.  Yet that seems THE main thing the public is discouraged from getting to, getting at, and thinking about.



This series was prompted by such an article I discovered with a built-in IMPLIED explanation for why women reporting domestic violence so often lose custody of their children.  Who does “implying” help?  (Post 1 in the series addresses this).

I have been saying (for years) start with what you know or can know that’s NOT majority hearsay and the rest speculation; work from the (definable) lowest common denominator known as to government structure, look at how it portrays its own operations, and get some working definitions of how resources flow from taxes through government entities, and in doing this you’ll have to also consider the private ones. You’ll need to comprehend the concept of “entity” to start with, and “non-entity”  and other terms with associated concepts, most of which will never make it into a news article about a family court fiasco (“fiasco” at least from the mother’s point of view after reporting abuse of herself or her children). I sometimes publicize phrases that call attention to such terms and concepts:

  • A PROJECT IS NOT A PERSON (corporate or government entity).
  • A BUDGET =/= A BALANCE SHEET

For Example:  public schools are projects, operations, of school districts, which are category a special government entities.  As such, they must cough up some financials and we ought to read them!  

Read the rest of this entry »

Revisiting and Remembering National NOW’s “Six Core Issues,” Like Number Two: “Ending Violence Against Women,’ vis-a-vis How Far Down A. Domestic Violence and B. “The Family Court Crisis” Are Buried.. and Several NOW IRS Forms 990 [April 28, 2022].

leave a comment »

I was curious whether “NOW” is no longer a force to be reckoned with for women’s rights, despite some high-profile individuals involved with NOW criticizing others who aren’t doing what they haven’t, yet, either.  (See previous post, link below).

What I found at apps.IRS.gov/app/eos/: (“EOS” for “Exempt Organizations Search”): many scattered and (for the most part) small tax-exempt chapters and national IRS filings. Many were IRS-auto-revoked, and some seem to have stopped filing altogether (they may be extinct, maybe not). The generic search brought up 425 results, so I narrowed it down to those who had Forms 990 copies. Of these, based on a name-search at Candid.org’s “Research and Verify Nonprofits 990-finder,” which displays total  assets (note: not revenues) in a table, not one was significantly large.

NOW national isn’t that big compared to other influential foundations.  (I cannot speak to the collective impact of the grassroots). Tax returns (with active links) are posted to several NOW entities below.

Again, the context of this post was from the previous one on who gets appointed to DV Task Forces, and how “feminist” are they (or, are they not, in the final analysis).

Caution in interpreting the numbers: Total (gross) Assets at Candid.org or anywhere else is not a reflection of how much revenue is processed through any nonprofit, but, I saw nothing recent over $5,000,000 — and we have billion-dollar tax-exempt foundations with their hand in the family courts, domestic violence/child-abuse-prevention, diversionary justice, juvenile justice reform, etc. field, as well as other domestic violence resource network organizations (so to speak) funded by both HHS and DOJ federally, well over $10,000,000 revenues annually (two examples:  NCJFCJ in Nevada and Futures Without Violence in California, which controls real estate and was as I recall over $40M revenues at one point. These organizations also trade funds among each other, i.e., sub-grant or pass-through to each other.. I didn’t check just this moment but in New York, I imagine that Vera Institute of Justice would also be quite large.** Of course NOW isn’t running shelters, it has a different purpose, but still, I wasn’t too surprised to see that its not showing up financially as a major factor player. It may be politically, but doesn’t seem to be financially..)


**Just before publishing, I took a quick look a VERA’s financials from CharitiesNYS.com; I’ve looked at these and the organization before; the size is truly stunning, as well as how it takes most of those (primarily)government grants and (based on the latest return, FY2020/YEJune as I recall, not signed til May, 2021) and turns them into over $100M of subcontracts.  It’s simply huge.  I decided, though, this deserves a separate post.  IF you’re curious, I’ll upload the pdf here:  Note one pdf has three forms in a row:  CHAR500 (which is great: It gives not only which govt agencies fund, but also the amounts.  It took more than a page to list them all), followed by the tax return (Form990), followed by the financial statements.
The Notes and other details say it’s also spun off (“Subsequent events” after the fiscal year end) a “Project Guardianship” where it’s functioning as public guardian for elderly and disabled, to manage their assets.  The amount seems to be $35,000,000 worth.  I also noted, out of all the pages that were inserted right-side-up, the ones that were somehow fed into the scanner upside down included several pages of grants (Schedule I), and several (not all) the actual financial statements.  In fact, I need to turn them all rightside up before uploading a pdf, so “maybe later.”

Looking for these also brings up — any search does — even more database issues (separate from any organization/entity filing issues). This comes with privatization, i.e., private ownership and administrations of such data, this time (again), with Candid.org which grabs tax returns from the IRS and posts them.

“Candid”has a user interface to search for these by entity name — which it gets wrong so often, I wonder whether they are manually entered, or what…so you must use EIN# with it for halfway reasonable search results ,and correct for errors, repeat the search, and pay attention to what does or doesn’t surface with each filter applied.  It has other benefits (presentation in columns, some ability to track earlier tax returns through url tweaks, something the IRS database doesn’t seem to have.

In searching for all these NOW entities on Candid the other day, I noticed you cannot enter more than one, distinct EIN# per search.  Why not?  That would seem to be one of the most basic standards of a user interface.  But no, you must repeat, repeat, and repeat again.  It’s free, but horribly inefficient!

This post is:

Revisiting and Remembering National N.O.W.’s “Six Core Issues,” Like Number Two: “Ending Violence Against Women” vis-a-vis How Far Down: A. Domestic Violence and B. ‘The Family Court Crisis’ Are Buried.. with Several NOW IRS Forms 990 [April 28, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eot” and middle character is a lower-case “o” as in “oh, my!”). About 6,000 words.

Like many (if not most) of my posts, it arose from another one just published:

Table Talk’ Helps You Quickly Analyze Any Task Force*, Council, Commission, etc. (*Here, New York’s Task Force for a COVID-19 DV Response): Add Columns for Entity/Non-Entity, Website, Legal Domicile, and (For Size/Operations), Even For Some EIN#s, to Find AND read Any Tax Returns [Publ. Apr. 26, 2022].. (short-link ends “-egn”)

In it, I’d quoted New York City NOW on the New York (State) Council on Women and Girls’ Melissa DeRosa (you can’t miss it — the two largest images on my post, or link on the caption, below).

and on its disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo,  so I decided to review and post some of the NOW national, and city basic information, in a quick overview.

It’s good to know when reading output in major media citing to any nonprofit, what its financials show — and if they’re showing on its website. I also look at NOW (National’s) Six Core Issues...

Disclaimer:

This is not that detailed a drill-down; I wanted to take a look, and publish what I’d seen so far. There’s more that could be done (and should), but not my research and writing priority, or interest, at this time.  This post may however be interesting to some to see why I stand where I do in not holding my breath for help from these sources.

Some posts come out in one, almost nonstop session. This one did:  I knew what I wanted to say and how much I decided might be helpful to show (not just “say”), resulting in some quotes, and several more tables with the last three years of tax returns. That’s this post.


In quoting what an entity says about itself, why shouldn’t I quote both its own websites and (once found — NOW entities seem to specialize, like many in the DV infrastructure, in NOT volunteering their EIN#s or uploading sufficient financials) its own tax return and transparency habits?

For when those financials or EIN#s aren’t posted on entity websites, New York State’s charities search site is quite helpful, and it has a business entities search site also.  Add to that what the IRS may have (that CharitiesNYS.com doesn’t already) and it’s a good start. For anyone also exploring more of the New York State COVID-19 DV Response Task Force (appointed May, 2020; its chair resigned in disgrace August, 2021), that link will help.  Many members, obviously, might be and were on New York non-profit entities.

This post states where I stand as a feminist — I still believe I am — who didn’t sign on the line for this agenda, but whether or not I ever did, regardless of the reasons I did not, this post illustrates that, and possibly why help is NOT coming from this quarter as to, specifically, abuse of women as women and as mothers who’ve already dealt with domestic violence through/by way of, the family court system.

Listen to the organizations spell it out in their own words!

It’s not a right/left dilemma politically.  Yes, the DV infrastructure (and certainly NOW) leans to the Left, but that doesn’t mean it’s above throwing innocent people, particularly mothers who may not be “full-on” with NOW’s list of issues, in the middle of a highway with federal-grants-laden state and federal buses speeding and aiming right at them, but fails to even sound an alert. Targeting us, when we have children, it’s going to hurt our children — the next generations many of us gave birth to, and still hope to see a future for. The states want us “out of the way” so as to do its system-change, societal realignment and infrastructure capacity-building, and be complimented for it too.

NOW had positioning, it had opportunity, and it has certainly had the information timely.  It just wasn’t interested…. I’ve been a witness.

I think at the end of the day, we (in the “demographic” I mention above and will spell out later in the post (fine print, though) — and other than being a woman, I don’t fit any — not one — of those demographics that seem to interest N.O.W., although for a season it** seemed to show some interest in what was going down in the family court systems — are going to have to help ourselves, whether individually or in clusters through networking.

**I should refer to a single organization as an “it” not a “they.”  Here, there are several entities at the national level, and chapters, but still as entities, I’ll say “it” not “they” to keep this in mind.

What “we are going to have to help ourselves,” means when obstacles such as internet access, or internet/media platform screening algorithms impede connecting, and being often separated geographically,^^ we can’t spend all our time processing others’ information and trying to “get on the same page.” That’s the corporate world:  collectivism, and the lowest common denominator (I’m talking, of information) rises to the top.  Energy spent seeking with whom to collaborate can be redirected, and perhaps should be.

(^^Elon Musk just made a deal to buy Twitter: it’s going private, did you hear?  It’s already got algorithms warning people away from my (fairly innocent!) account, and I have yet to see any explanation why the numbers are so low with how much information I put out…  I shudder to think what it might mean… that a man who believes he’s preserving mankind’s future by looking to colonize other worlds through space, and who obviously has talent and creativity … but, there has also been coverage of how he treats the women he decides to have children with; extreme control, and deviously so.  I wouldn’t expect much less at the helm of Twitter, and I for one, appreciate SEC reports as a source of information on PUBLIC-traded companies…

BELOW here is everything I wrote earlier on the topics mentioned in the post title. Taking the content here lets me publish the related “Table Talk on Task Forces” (short-link ends “-egn”), which is was my goal (it was published 4/26)..

Read the rest of this entry »

Budgets Aren’t Balance Sheets! and other Basic (USA)Facts about Billionaires’ Philanthropic Behaviors, Such as of 2014-retired Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer + His Wife Connie [Aug. 4, 2018]

leave a comment »

I started to weave some of this information into a different post, anticipating writing further on it.

However, after about a days’ hunt for two (STILL not found yet) EIN#s connected with the famous philanthropists mentioned in the title, and after reading the tax returns / shabby filing habits of one of the no doubt much smaller ones also associated (referring to the Los Angeles Clippers Foundation — Steven Ballmer also owns the Los Angeles Clippers), I felt it better to sequester this topic onto its own post.

Too bad, because, understood better, it adds weight to the original argument — most headlines involved nonprofits at SOME level, and we’d be better off as a whole, when they come up, to look them up!

Anyhow:  My post title:

Budgets Aren’t Balance Sheets! and other Basic (USA)Facts about Billionaires’ Philanthropic Behaviors, Such as of 2014-retired Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer + His Wife Connie [July, 2018] (short-link ends “-982”).  Started mid-July, published Aug. 4, 2018, at about 9,000 words (tags added later).  It comes from the middle of Two Plaintiffs’ Counsel Nonprofits for Class Action Lawsuit (℅ Center for Investigative Reporting article) (Short-link ends “-95X,” published 7/31/2018).

CLICK IMAGE TO READ!  Good Ventures (Public, ℅ SVCF) Form 990, FY2016 Sched L acknowledging ICONIQ Capital’s “Interested Person” status through 35% owner, Divesh Makan (viewed 8/4/2018)

The post title could also reference, and I do include for comparison, two other philanthropic couples, both with close ties to Facebook and a multi-billion-dollar Silicon Valley Community Foundation (“SVCF”) formed by merger to reach $1 billion assets only in 2006.

Besides Zuckerberg’s apparent direct involvement in (funding) SVCF and with Iconiq Capital’s Divesh Makan (discussed below) from before Facebook went public, these two couples also headed two of SVCF’s many “related tax-exempt organizations” formed since 2006 (samples below).  However, the Chan-Zuckerberg related organization dissolved itself in 2016 into multiple other “CZI” branded LLCs (Delaware entities) while more “CZI” branded nonprofits were then started up (again, shown below).

CLICK IMAGE TO READ! Good Ventures (Public, ℅ SVCF) Form 990, FY2016 Sched O showing entwined relationships (viewed 8/4/2018)

So husband-and wife couples Priscilla Chan & Mark Zuckerberg (Startup: Education + the more recent Chan Zuckerberg Initiative) and Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna, have overlapping mutual foundation interests. Zuckerberg and Moskovitz were Facebook co-founders, and one major mutual foundation in common is the Silicon Valley Community Foundation in Santa Clara County, (SF Bay Area) California.

Moskovitz & Tuna’s variety of “Good Ventures” entities (one public (<==EIN#452757586, 2016 tax return), one private (<==EIN#461008520, 2015 tax return) foundation and an LLC) collectively report (2016) over $1B Assets (the LLC’s assets are unknown; LLCs don’t have to reveal their financials to the public). (Next 3-image gallery shows: 1) Total combined gross Assets from these two “Good Ventures” foundations (along with some others) in table form, and 2), 3) self-disclosure on multiple entities from the organization’s website.

GoodVentures.com the website was (still is, generally) initially confusing until I looked up the referenced organizations financials. That website doesn’t overtly feature “SVCF” but instead “GiveWell” and “Open Philanthropy Project,” which (like Startup: Education — and Good Ventures) seems to keep changing its format and, correspondingly, its reporting requirements, using one sound-byte (or trademark) for multiple organizations.  GiveWell it also turns out is a trade name (‘dba’) not an entity name.

The public “Good Ventures” foundation (℅ SVCF) has only 3 officers:  Cari Tuna, Dustin Moskovitz, and Divesh Makan, and the (highly paid) board / officers of related SVCF (as of tax return 2016).

There are investment managers in common among these various foundations and LLCs (ICONIQ Capital, Apercen Partners, Square Seven Management**) showing up: as “℅” on the addresses; as well-paid independent subcontractors (Form 990 Pt. VIIB); and/or as “(Form 990 Sched L) Interested-Person Transactions,” or (as in Good Ventures example imaged above) as might be reported on a tax return under Schedule O, “Supplemental Information”). … For the LLCs, searchable in California at BusinessSearch.sos.ca.gov, they show up as either listed “managers” and/or at the same street address + Suite#s entity addresses.

(**Square Seven Management LLC it says is managed by Iconiq Capital LLC, a Delaware Entity)

These networked billionaires work through networked foundations and similarly named LLCs to: move the money, pool the assets, and use common investment managers often, who invest alongside them and are paid fees and percentages of “AUM,” assets under management (presumably).

Who knows, perhaps that’s what ‘APERCEN” in “Apercen Partners” refers to – “A percen(t).”  (Just kidding…)

Investopedia 2/28/2016 article (Mark P. Cussen), “Are AUM Fees a Thing of the Past?” (Click image to enlarge or click through for article).

Search “AUM fees” for several results.  Here’s an interesting and quick-read one from March 28, 2018: “Why AUM-Based Fees Don’t Meet Fiduciary Standards” by Bert Whitehead of “Cambridge, Connection, Inc.  “Advisor Perspectives.”  Another from Guideline.com (What is an AUM Fee?), and from Investopedia that they may be going out of fashion: Are AUM Fees a Thing of the Past? by By Mark P. Cussen, CFP®, CMFC, AFC | February 12, 2016.  Notice these are all written by financial advisors of one kind or another, see all the initials after that last author (and nearby image)

 

The networked billionaires then advertise their own work on websites which post, typically, no identification (or minimal and not the most recent by far) of tax returns for specific foundations, or evidence of any LLC filings, or audited financial statements. Where would those audited financial statements be found?  While sometimes the California OAG may post audited financial reports under individual foundation’s “Details” page, for these (I’m reporting on herein) it doesn’t seem to.

The spider-like nature (multiple related organizations, with separate identities but apparently common SVCF management) and behavior of SVCF blurs the IRS’ definition (when movement of money is shown) of “supporting organization” (the “support” seems to be going in the opposite direction) and the concept of actual independent entities, when the independent entities simply delegate administration and management to the controlling one (here, SVCF), paying its board and/or employees handsomely for the fees, and retaining (both supporting and supported, i.e. SVCF, organizations) most assets while granting out (for several of these SVCF-managed related organizations) millions of dollars more in a given year than is taken in — some “budget” — knowing that their rich benefactors will either cough up some more, or close it down as part of an obviously pre-determined exit strategy.

Overall it seems to be more about the investments held by and funds moving between multiple nonprofits under common management (including some of the boards) than about the advertised projects.  Another reason I say, watch the Balance Sheets as much as if not more than the Budget.

Also complicating comparisons among multiple entities, even of public with private ones under common management or ownership:

Differences between public (990s) and private (990PF) filings (unofficial, deduced just through observation)…making cross-comparisons from the same wealth source harder for the average person, although the purpose of by law (Internal Revenue Code) making them public at all, one would think, is for the average person, “the public,” — not just potential donors — to understand how entities with tax-exempt privilege are in fact operating and what they are doing with that privileged status.

My comments refer to IRS Forms 990 since substantial revisions in 2008 only. I have spent more time looking at the more recent forms, although I often do go back before 2008 for specific entities.

  • PUBLIC 990-filing foundations have to categorize types of investments on their balance sheets (Part X, since the IRS Form 2008ff) and provide more detail on Schedule “D” to Part X for any amounts for Other Investments or “Other Assets,” but do not have to name which exact corporate/public-traded or other investments are held.   
  • Public foundations also in their grantmaking are to supply EIN#s for grantees
  • Public foundations by IRS form have to segregate domestic and foreign grants on different schedules (Schedule I, Schedule F) 
  • PRIVATE 990PF-filing foundationsremember, Good Ventures has one of each both formed about 2012 it says — do list how many shares of exactly which investments, and grouped by type, but do not (as I understand it/I may be wrong about that) have to categorize them on the tax return’s balance sheet statements as to type.  
  • PRIVATE (990PF-filing foundations) in listing their grants do not have to separate domestic (USA) and foreign (non-USA) grants — and some of these are granting out millions with very long lists.  They also are not required to provide EIN#s for any grantee, making fact-checking or follow-up harder; especially when grantees can and do tend to change their names, or if the name & address recorded on the 990PF do not match reality.
  • The PROBLEM: Together, this makes obtaining an overall view on any single enterprises’ (or individuals’) financial impact on specific projects. The information is dispersed, and it’s recorded in different reporting formats even when the money may be coming from the same source (i.e., same extraordinary personal wealth).
  • Movement / re-branding of business entities over time:
    • The project & organization “Open Philanthropy” at “GiveWell” (to which GoodVentures and others have been contributing) then morphed into “Open Philanthropy” (so far, I’ve located three types of entities:  LLC, 501©3 — barely funded — and 501©4 — startup funding about $55M!!). Some details below, see also list of “tags” for this post which name several of the entities.
    • GiveWell and Open Philanthropy bring up two more names (both young(ish) men, not a “couple”), Holden Karnofsky & Elie Hassenfeld, as well as the hedge fund investment management firm (Bridgewater Associates) where they met and came from.  More on this below the next aqua-highlit paragraph and “Open Philanthropy Action Fund” tax return table.
      • Not shown this post, but I’ve looked at several (at least five) of the largest donors GiveWell has been recommending and looked up their tax returns since this post was published Aug. 4, 2018.  I also did a chrono review of GiveWell (“The Clear Fund’s) tax returns as far back as 990finder provides. I wouldn’t give any of them a “C+” on transparency or reporting, and some (Imperial College Foundation, Atlanta GA) an “F” (just moving money to a well-endowed UK London,UK college).
      • Among the grantees, Harvard grads are “everywhere,” particularly at Evidence Action, which has a well-stated relationship with GiveWell as a sponsor, also with organization’s I’d run across and blogged separately associated with behavioral modification studies on the poor in developing countries. J-PAL and IPA (Innovations for Poverty Action). Search Alix Petersen Zwane for more insight.
      • Around 2011/2012, Cari Tuna shows up on the Board and GiveWell’s entity address goes cross-country (NY to SF), and funds start pouring in.
      • As I have said several times, “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan” investment model in action.
    • Startup Education (of SVCF) morphed into Chan Zuckerberg (or “CZI”) initiatives, and so forth.  Several details (in image gallery format and described) below. See also list of “tags” for this post which name several of them.
The various websites always advertise how philanthropic and altruistic the causes are while, typically not showing the real picture behind the money movement, dispersal, and in general, obfuscation.

Personally, I find it hypocritical and stunningly arrogant. Failure to disclose their own financials while collaborating with their own social niches to channel grants to nonprofits which then lecture the public at large about better management of public institutions [health, education, criminal justice, housing, civil rights, immigration, racial equity — you name it] and how to “improve” them in this fashion and through these strategies.  Look at enough tax returns and related websites, and the background picture comes into clearer focus.

It is the tax returns (and, where available, AUDITED financial statements, plus name-change records at the Secretary of State (or corresponding state-level business filing databases; in California it’s the Secretary of State, others, may be Dept. of Revenue or of Corporations), and not the literal self-descriptions in words and (of course) appealing, empathy-insiring photos which provide the better interpretation of what the organizations are doing. Even site-visits or personal acquaintance (i.e., experiential impressions) cannot override the vitality of financials in comprehending WHAT — at this level of sponsored projects, nonprofits, and grant-making foundations etc. — the rich have in mind for the poor, as opposed to for themselves.  
Do this while you can, because indicators are that some of these privately controlled foundations (or their projects) are spinning off into LLCs.  One example shown in detail below (SVCF’s Startup: Education into Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative LLC); likewise the Good Ventures’ featured “Open Philanthropy Project” and promotion of (another couple’s 2007-formed) “GiveWell” foundation (See GoodVentures.com or the 3-image gallery above to note) has spun off into, not its own, transparent, tax-return filing (for public information) 501©3, but instead another LLC.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

August 4, 2018 at 2:22 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, from ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018)

leave a comment »

Full Post Title:Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 11,000 words]

**Explained more below in this post, and in a typical post. No apologies for failing to sugar-coat the news. Or for long sentences in the next few indented paragraphs, summarizing my understanding and explaining that comment. With additional “show-and-tell” relating to the rest of this post (and blog).

Read the rest of this entry »

Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update) [Publ. July 12, 2017]

with one comment

Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update) case-sensitive short-link ending “-7bR”

I(Oct 2014 updated July 2017, Pt. 3B, i.e., taken from “Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O or Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around existing suffrage for “men of color” long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order.”

WITHIN that post, I extracted a section about conversations we need to have:  To Identify and UNDERstand is to know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order, [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update]  (case-sensitive shortlink this time ends “-7dX”).  That brief post ends with a shortlink to this one (although without the fancy title).

That (short) post reminded readers of my Five Related Posts  from the Vital Links menu whose themes continue to prove relevant year after year, no matter which topic I seem to be researching or reporting on.  It also reminded and showed readers an interesting (and so far, typical) response to the relevance of the CAFR (Consolidated Annual Financial Reports) Mass Media Coverups when it’s brought to light.

THIS ONE was first started for technical (length, easier revision) purposes 7-7-2017.  All paragraph breaks had been wiped out…

There were also at least two length issues here.  One is me running my mouth in quasi-PTSD mode back in 2014 (a time of major household stress and transition as I had just outed relative probate/fiduciary abuse in the context of same relative’s prior involvement in undoing my work life via post-domestic violence separation’s family court litigation — on the opposing side, etc.)  Another length issue was technical blogging ability — at the time I hadn’t discovered how to use (smaller) screenprints, instead of quotes, and or begun using condensed fonts inside quotes, or lines to set them off from basic text inside boxes.  I hope to correct both without negating or erasing important content.  But some post “surgery” may be required here….

BUT, I WILL STILL CONVEY THE PRIMARY MESSAGES:


CAFRs as a system of reporting for government entities regulated by a tax-exempt nonprofit set up by the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) only began, at least as regulated by this tax-exempt nonprofit, in the 1970s, by which time post World War II government surpluses were really starting to accumulate (as well as personal fortunes made in wartime).

Key to CAFR coverup is accounting practices which separate “BUDGET” from many other funds, handle “General Fund” as though it was the main source of government receipts (it most certainly isn’t at the federal, state, and most other levels).  Being blissfully (??) ignorant of how to assess, see, or conceptualize just how many assets and in what forms, and under what funds, all levels of (USA – federal) (States — all 50 and territories) governments, plural, exist and where they are pooled, or where held separately, “the people” are easily fooled into accepting the constant talk of DEFICIT without regard to NET ASSETS or even GROSS ASSETS (and taking a look at how liabilities are accounted for).

The problem with showing this information is the “snooze” factor.  It’s not colorful, juicy, doesn’t have major photography involved; it requires actual dealing with numeric and categorization concepts (somewhat abstract) even though they really do apply to concrete situations — like how to make a city go bankrupt needlessly by changing accounting rules.

It also isn’t typically grasped with just 15 minutes of exposure, or maybe even a few days. Constant absorption of current events and news does NOT typically equip or condition a person to absorbing this type of information if one doesn’t already know how to.  Its impact is also so significant, there is a natural desire to go back to the “pristine” innocent belief that the problem wasn’t so fundamental.


The post “To Identify and UNDERstand is to know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order, [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update]“(case-sensitive shortlink this time ends “-7dX”,) talks about conversations we (the public) should be having as part of normal basic, understanding of life in this country.  These conversations ideally should be with each other in places where we can view the same visuals, charts, and discuss them ideally face to face and ongoing, and with our own families or partners, or friends.  BUT, we have been conditioned NOT to talk about these things, and become focused and engrossed on other things instead.

Business owners who operated in this manner would go under, or get taken over because they are not paying attention to their bottom lines, or the current marketplace and climate — or finding and listening to others who can tell the truth about it.

This information IS “the bottom line” for people living here and subject to taxation, policies, conditions created by various entities, and propaganda, where it may be propaganda, about the where IS that bottom line, really — as a basis for setting future policy.

These more people should be having with each other are talks about money which take into account how the government sector interacts with the public (through taxation and tax-exemption), what’s done with tax receipts (how it’s shown in reports versus portrayed on the media), and how government entities differ from business entities organized under the same governments (guess which one is really on top?).  These conversations cannot occur without at least some basic vocabulary and a bit of “practice.”  That “practice” has to include some financial statements and tax return reading.

I have some very smart, articulate, well-educated friends, who I continue to respect.  Some may say they are no good with numbers, their minds don’t work that way.  How much of this is nature or nurture (or lack of nurture when it come to basic math) isn’t my business.

I realize some people are visual learners, but I refuse to believe there are not more people who are capable of thinking conceptually AND capable of comprehending consequences of having had significant information about how our own governments operate using their financial statements being withheld from the average person, and from open, and frequent discussion on-line and in social media.

Carl Herman, “Nonpartisan examiner” 7/3/2011, leading quotes (after link to a video) in “Debt-damned economics: Learn monetary reform or kiss your assets goodbye (Pt. 1 of 2)”. Accessible also from his article on the $600B fund that can’t fund $27B pension obligations, (below).

I wonder what is the psychological block to facing some of these facts, or understanding that they refer to things which often make headlines in the major media anyhow — for example, constant talk of underfunded pensions, pension liabilities making or breaking some major metropolitan city.  Again — Carl Herman (cited enough on this blog, probably on the post leading to this one) said it clearly enough and he’s not alone.  I just think he expressed it well — why hold over $600B assets (speaking of I believe CalPERS) when it doesn’t adequately fund pension contributions anyhow?  Here’s a paragraph from my lead-in post (with a little extra color for emphasis):

For an antidote, go read some Walter Burien (May 10, 2010, “Is our Government Bankrupt?…. Analogies are Fun to Use: Is the Columbian Cartel short of cocaine?“, Clint Richardson (July 20, 2013, “Detroit: The Latest Bankruptcy Lie” (hover-cursor for abstract, and read the top part, too)), or Carl Herman, who asks such questions as, “CAFR summary: if $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B budget deficit, why have it?? (from his 2012 article) and, like the others, can also walk people through it, and has:

  • Interview: Game-changing CAFR trillions explained (Feb. 14, 2014)….These astounding funds are disclosed in official Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs). Government and media “leaders” claiming no options but austerity while failing to honestly communicate surplus trillions is OBVIOUS criminal financial fraud . .

So, this post starts with a slight overlap (naming the five posts and reminding us to go check out the FMS Treasury.gov website (and/or its redirect) to view some reports.

Expanding on that commentary from Burien (2010) above, he gives an analogy (other than the rhetorical response — “Is the Columbian cartel short of cocaine?” which seems a good analogy for the situation! I added a screenprint, then a quote:
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: